The Jesus movie

[Rich]

Has anyone seen the Jesus movie which has been translated into about 500 languages? What did you think of it?

[Deerslayer]

Sorry Rich I haven't see the movie but I did read the Book. :D

[Rich]

Deerslayer,

I don't think you read the same book they used.

The movie put out by Campus Crusade for Christ didn't put a crown of thorns on His head. Neither did they pull out his beard. They seemed to forget the spear thrust into his side. There was hardly any "stripes" by which we are healed. They tied him to the cross and then nailed him though the wrist. What's up with that?

This reminds me of the two women I know who came to the Lord by reading the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. They didn't know each other. Both left the organization to be with beleivers.

[Herne]

Rich, I think you will find that being nailed through the wrist is factually accurate. That is how the Romans did it.

If you are nailed through the hand, the nail tears through and off the cross you fall.

[TinStar]

Wrist? Hand? What's the diff? He still died for me!
During those times also the word used for hand also included the wrist area too.
Also "The Passion" comes closest to what our Lord endured; but only He knows what it felt like to bear the sind of all and have the Father look the other way.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

[Herne]

Exactly Tin. I have no issue with the generalist view of the Scriptures!

I'm not even sure whether any of the gospels actually say how he was nailed, other than he was nailed. I believe the hands bit is actually a mediaeval interpretation.

I'm not sure about the original Greek, but certainly in Latin a hand is one thing and a wrist is another. The KJV was translated from the latin vulgate or course and not the Greek original texts.

[Rich]

Herne,

I think my son-in-law would disagree with you. He recently told me about someothing he saw on the History channel or some channel like that. He was ammazed as they showed the Romans nailed through the hands or the wrist. He told me a lot more, but since this is the only thing that comes to mind I can't bring more to the post.

As for the nails pulling through, I think you better check for yourself. A friend of mine tried to save some time while nailing a header with a nail gun. Maybe you guessed what happened by now. He jumped up with a 2X6 and shot through the 2X6 and into the stud, but only after putting the nail through his thumb. His feet were dangling about four inches from the floor, being supported by one nail through one thumb.

Also, when Tom Kindell was in college, he somehow fanegeled a cadaver. He nailed it to the wall in the lab through the hands. It hung there without the support of being nailed through the feet. We are not talking about some tough living flesh, but a dead man. Of course when an official heard about it, it came down and was used for it desinated purpose.

And even more, and more importantly. I met two women, months appart, who after reading in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, about the nails going through the hands came to the Lord Jesus Christ. Why? Because they both accepted the Word of God over the word of men found in the Watch Tower and Awake; and the material like that which you have read.

Might as well keep going. I was sitting with a friend at his computer having this very conversation. He was not convinced God had protected His Word on this subject. I suggested,
"You have the Hebrew Bible and dictionary in your computer, don't you?"
"Yea, why?" he asked.
"How 'bout goin' to Psalm 22 where we find the first mention of 'They pierced My hands and My feet' and check out the Word hand?"

When he did, he discovered the Hebbrew Word is "the cupper portion". I then asked him to cup his wrist. When he lifted his hands the tendons protruded. When he bent his hand back his wrist was rounded up. Then he realized that just hangin' around, his had was cupped.

God's Word is True from the First Verse. Remeber, "Let God be True, though every man a liar."

[Rich]

Herne,

After just posting the previous post, I see you posted again. Therefore I will help you if you want some archeological info.

According to Willian Albright, Ph.D ALL the New Testament was finished by the year 70 AD. (He was NOT a Christian. During his day, he was considered the world's leading expert on the Middle East.) This was less than forty years after the death, burial and resurection of Jesus Christ. Many witnesses were still alive at that time.

Just the other day I watched something on the boob tube where another archeologist, again not a Christian, was saying anyone who does not beleive the New Testament was not finished by the year 70 AD is not looking at archeological discoveries, but is reading about archeology.

[Herne]

Sorry I am a little confused about the date and the end of the New testament. Does that imply that there is some kind of error in it?

Or even the meaning of the hebrew word for whatever - and one of the gospels at least was never written in hebrew anyway, but in Greek. Luke was it not?

The point is that the KJV, (which is literally true?), is translated from LATIN - the mediaeval vulgate, not the original Greek or Hebrew. So the Psalm 22 translation is a 17th century translation from the mediaeval vulgate from the original. There is possibly another step in there as well if the Mediaevalists used the Byzantine greek in the absence in many cases of the original Hebrew, which would not have been the language they understood or even read. You will understand that the Jews and things Jewish were not over popular in the Christian middle ages, and anything in Latin was the authority. Or indeed all that most seats of learning actually had access to.


As for hanging off a 2" nail - doubtless you would for a couple of minutes. But not all day writhing in agony, slowly suffocating. Which was why the Romans had a habit of knocking the nail between the two wrist bones. So you didn't fall off your cross and hurt yourself. They were, after all, the experts.

As for stuff written in The Watch Tower - thats Jehovahs Witnesses I beleive? Never touched their stuff, much less actually opened it.

[Rich]

Herne,

You mentioned you are a little confussed. From you post I see that.

If you read the preface to a newly published King James Bible or a new New King James Bible or a New American Standard Bible, you will discover they are translated from the orginal languages. There is no language between what we get in our new Bbiles and the orignal languages.

Archeology is wonderful. I heard a lecture the other day. The speaker said there are now 64,000 Manuscripts or fragments of Manuscripts available for the Bible translators today. The next closest is Homer's stuff with about 650 manuscripts. Some of the New Testament Manuscripts go back to the first century. There are a few centuries between Homer's writings and when he lived. Therefore they are copies of copies. Granted we have copies of copies of the Bible, but they say the same as Other Manuscripts; except for the Alexandreian. There are three of them. They don't agee with each other and they don't agee with the Other New Testament Manuscripts. Kinda like the Jehovah's Witnesses today. By the way, when it appears there is an error in the Bible based on archeology, I chuckle and wait for the scientists to catch up.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

The reason I brought up the Hebrew is That has the first mention of "pierced My hands".

It was not a 2" nail, it was a 16 penny nail. He was not hanging quietly waiting for help. He did hang long enough for someone to come lift him up while another guy built a little platform for him to stand on.

I see you didn't address the cadaver. It was nailed through the palm part of the hand. Tom told me he had it up there for more than a day. Facts are hard to overcome.

[Herne]

"And with the former translations diligently compared and revised" are the actual words are they not.

As for this cadaver on the wall. I fear I am a realistic man. How very careless of someone the leave a floppy lying about, and how convenient that it was just found. Conveniently undecomposed, and not gassed up at all, post rigor, so it could be bent into shape? And when found nailed to a door, unflyblown of course, I suppose everyone just said " Oh, there's uncle Cedric. How nice, can we have him back? Aunt Ethel will be pleased she can bury him at last - he was always wandering off", and that was the end of it. Come off it, this is the sort of stuff of which grand newspaper stories are made, and lunatics, rightly, get certified.

Someone is on the wacky-baccy, or they believe because they are desperate to believe.

This is Burke and Hare and the bodysnatchers Victorian tye horror films, with people sneaking out of morgues at the dead of night, in top hats and black suits and face masks, the fog swirling about withall!!!. You believe the tale for one second?

[Rich]

Herne,

Apparently you have never heard of donating one's body to science. The bodys are used in colleges by college students who have been known to do some rather unorthodox things.

[Herne]

Of course. What was the phrase you used - "Intended purpose".

You were also going to mention "former translations" and address that issue? You are slightly up against it, because one of our other copies of the KJV actually has an explanatory preface and explains exactly where the translation came from, not that that is the word of God, merely those of his informed servants, but carry on.

If you want the political context, which it was actually all about, you will know that protestantism had only just gained a foothold in England, and as a part of that the move was to hold church services in English, in order to separate the newly exablished church from the earlier Catholic church. At that stage it still called itself Catholic. Given that Church and State were seen as one, this was a political not a religious statement rejecting the power of Rome. (and Spain and France our our traditional enemies and whom we were still fighting in the Low Countries and who were supported by the Papapcy.) Of course, at the time, many very brave Catholic priests were trying to restore Catholicism, and they too needed a bible which all could read. Hence they produced a new translation from the same material - the Douai version, and the wording is almost identical. Being a Bible I suppose every word in that is correct too?

[ncboman]

No bones were ever broken in offerings of sacrifice. Likewise, Jesus was "pierced" thru the hollow of the wrists and not the hands.

in Strong's, one of the Hebrew translations for 'hands' is 'wrists'.

Contorting the translations to fit one's own purpose is a form of self worship.

Rich, can you tell us what the great lie is?

ncboman

[Rich]

ncboman,

The great lie is evolution.

It seems odd to me that you would appeal to God's Word to inform me that no bones would be broken and then appeal to human logic to correct God's Word about the placement of the nails. I accept no bone would be broken for the same reason I accept the nails went through His hands. God's Word tells us so.

Try to cup your wrist.

[ncboman]

in Strong's, one of the Hebrew translations for 'hands' is 'wrists'.

ncboman

ncboman

[Waidmann]

Rich,

The problem I have with your take on this is pretty simple. You wrote:


It seems odd to me that you would appeal to God's Word to inform me that no bones would be broken and then appeal to human logic to correct God's Word about the placement of the nails. I accept no bone would be broken for the same reason I accept the nails went through His hands. God's Word tells us so.

It sounds like you really believe God's Word, doesn't it? However, four days ago you wrote:


I dont remember discussing "dying, you will surely die." But I feel busted with your supporting Scriptures. Thanks for the heads up on these. I will fall back on my old friend ignorant predjudice and hold on to my belief. I bet you do the same at times.

By the way, you'd lose that bet. But that isn't the point at the moment. What you said in the previous post is essentially "I see that the Scriptures don't back up my opinion, but I'm going to hold on to my beliefs regardless of the fact that Scripture itself says something different". That kinda destroys your creditability. You've admitted that you believe God's Word when it agrees with you, and you are quite free about ignoring God's Word when it doesn't.

Why should anyone take your "God's Word tells us so" argument seriously? You cherry pick your "believing" of God's word to suit you. You'd be a lot more honest with us if you dropped the "God's word says..." business and just admit that you believe what you want to and to heck with the evidence. Most of us already know it anyhow.

Waidmann

[Herne]

I was wondering why evolution is seen as the great lie? Daily, DNA patterns are proving that it is correct.

Secondly, even the creationists accept it.

We know that the Noahs Ark wasn't big enough to accept two of every living thing. It would sink under the weight of a pair of every insect, long before you got anywhere near starting to load all the mammals.

So they resort to the argument that the animals went in 2 by 2 according to their kind. A pair of deer, a carnivore etc. Is that not correct? So we have now kept all these animals fed and a watered for 40 days or whatever, according to their kind, with or without some raft for fodder which isn't mentioned, and off they come, 2 by 2 according to their kind, and the penguins, the flightless birds, then womble off across the Sahara, and reach Antarctica.

Now there are lots and lots of penguins (say) of many different species. So these extra species have appeared and are distinct form each other. You can apply the same argument to carnivores, or shrews or whatever.

They adapted? - into separate species? That's evolution isn't it? I believe birds didn't go on the Ark because they can fly - hence my choice of penguins. Or these funny flightless birds in Africa and Australia which don't float - well not for 40 days and nights.

The transitional species are there in the fossil record, but then fossils aren't a popular idea idea either. (I doubt that anyone is going to be so blindingly stupid as to suggest that transitional species don't exist? A morning in the Smithsonian or its library is the short answer to that one)

Alternatively there is an error. Because I understood creationism to suggest that all was created when it was created, less minor adaptations - all species. Every living thing got aboard, and the extinctions of dinosaurs came later?

Adaptation I understand - but I do not believe that the anti-evolutionists can take it so far as to allow new species to form by adapting. The book is called the "On the origin of SPECIES".

When it comes ot it, the creationist has a great deal more explaining to do than the evolutionist.

[ncboman]

ncboman,

The great lie is evolution.



uh oh. :rolleyes:

ncboman

[Rich]

Herne,

There a scores of books written about this subject. But I will give it a little go. Evolution and God’s story of creation cannot be reconciled at all. (If you want I will address that in different post.) Even Crick and Watson, co-discovers of DNA realized it was too complex to come into existence by chance. Since they could not conceive of God doing it, they invented a fairy tale for adults. They appealed to “panspermia”. In other words space men did it! DNA is information. In fact it is the most efficient use of space for storing information discovered by intelligent scientists to date.

DNA is proving everyday evolution cannot happen by chance. And that is the only way evolution happens. Information is complex. This is accepted by almost any scientists. Most certainly by NASA. Billons of American tax dollars are spent to try to get even one message from space aliens. They would be happy if there was nothing more than a sequence of prime numbers. The simplest protein is infinitely more complex than this. From where did its information come?

Darwin’s called his book Origen of the Species; and yet never addresses that subject at all. There is no consensus in the evolution community accepting which single celled animal gave rise to multi-cellular life. Often I have asked for evidence of the two cell creature and the four cell creature and so forth. You see in the fossil record there are trillions of single cell animals found. There are trillions of multi-million cell creatures found; but nothing in between. In addition to that, no one has a clue how these multi-million cell creatures arrived in the fossil record. One evolutionist wrote “they seemed to appear like apparitions or ghosts.”

Next, I will suggest you don't understand the concept of evolution as taught by Darwin. Evolution is NOT adaptation. It is the accumulation of new and better traits through gaining new information. That has never been observed. Adaptation is survival of the fittest; which was written about at least ten years prior to Darwin publishing his book. Here’s the kicker: Two creationists wrote about survival of the fittest to explain God’s designed adaptations which generate new “species”. The new species are the same old species with less DNA information. Look at dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. They are considered different species and yet can bread and produce offspring. People have been playing with dogs for hundreds of years and they have not turned them into cats or rats. All they are are dogs with fewer traits, less information, than they had when they were mongrels.

As far as transitional forms, they are not found by experts in the fossil record. They are believed in by non-experts. When the curator of the museum in London, which had the biggest number of fossils of any museum in the world, wrote his book called EVOLUTION, he didn't include a single example of a transitional form. When he was asked about it, he said something like "If I knew of any, I would have certainly included them. But I don't know of a single water tight example.”

I see you have not read about the Flood from God's Word in a long time. The ark was 300 cubits long, 75 cubits wide, and 45 cubits high. The size of it was not duplicated until the last 300 years. The six to one ratio is considered by hydro engineers to be the most stable. In fact I read about one fellow who has a Ph.D in hydraulics and worked for the U.S. government for almost three decades said according to his calculations it could roll 89 degrees and still right itself. Its volume was equivalent to 522 double decked railroad stock cars.

God told Noah to bring on board only land animals and birds which had the breath of life in their nostrils. Therefore insects would not be included. They would survive just fine on the floating log mats that eventually became coal. This would not include any marine animals. Since Noah was about 480 years old when God told him to built the ark and being closer to the original creation, he would be considerably more intelligent than we are today. And even if he weren’t he had 480 years to learn about things. So, most likely he would have taken young adult examples of dinosaurs and reptiles; which are small and continue to grow until they die. Young and healthy specimens of all animals, in fact, would have come to him because God told Noah He would send them.

Most folks heard about God’s Flood from someone else, so they don’t know the True story about how many animals God brought to the ark. There were seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of unclean animals that went into the ark. Noah would not have to concern himself with carnivores because God gave plants for all animals as food. God told Noah to take the food onto the ark.

The rain lasted for forty days and forty nights. But the “bosoms of the great deep” were opened. The water continued to rise for 150 days;” until all the high mountain under the whole sky were covered by 21 ½ feet.” It lasted for 13 months. Folks who try to make it a local flood have difficulty getting a local flood to stay local if all the high mountains under the whole sky were covered.

After the flood the entire world was soft with moisture. There were no deserts or frozen poles. But very soon the hot ocean and the cold continents caused the ice age. The oceans were greatly heated by all the volcanic activity going on. The continents were cold because the volcanic activity caused considerable cloud cover. Remember what happened when that tiny Mount St. Helens erupted? It produced the equivalent energy of a bomb like that used to end World War II every second for nine hours. Its ash caused the temperature to drop a couple degrees. Now consider all the volcanoes known and unknown and you have something like a nuclear winter. The snow would get to be thousands of feet thick within a few centuries.

For the informed creationist fossils are fantastic evidence for creation. Trillions of fossils are buried in water born sediment all over the world: Predicted by God’s Word. Also, multiple billions of fossils are buried in volcanic ash. Again, predicted by God’s Word. I say predicted by God’s Word because it is implied by the information there. God judged the whole world with His Flood. How does one know when he discovers a fish fossil? It looks like a fish! How does one know when he finds a dinosaur fossil? It looks like a dinosaur! It doesn’t get any better than that. That’s what one would expect to find if Noah’s Flood occurred: Trillions of dead things buried in stone that was laid down by water. Just a couple years ago a T-rex bone was mount which still had blood in it. Four independent tests were conducted. All four showed it to be blood. Modern geologists have no explanation for the vast volcanic flows discovered in North Western United States. Most of Washington, Oregon, Northern California, Northern Nevada, and Idaho are volcanic flows. Most of the ocean floor is volcanic flows. The ocean floor is only covered by a few thousand years worth of sediment. Kinda sounds like the oceans may have a recent origin, doesn’t it?

Since the invention of the Electron Mass Spectrometer, all samples of coal and oil from anywhere in the world have been carbon fourteen dated. And OH NO! They all have the same dated age! Before the invention of this supper sensitive piece of equipment no carbon fourteen could be detected in these objects. To the unbiased person (there’s no such thing) it appears these things were all produced in a recent global event.

If you want to learn a lot more about this subject from someone a lot more educated than me, I suggest the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study. It an adult book.

[Herne]

You have a little difficulty with things like ice cores, and how far they go back, and the trapped air and pollen grains therein, which tells us what the weather was like (broadly) for several hundred thousand of years. So there is no need to suppose anything about nuclear winters - the evidence is writ very plain.

Ocean floors - core temperatures and subduction rates?

Mass spectrometers tell what something is made of, not how old it is. Coal is older than C14 can date, by several million years.

Dinosaur fossil bones with blood on/in them - well now that is something. Please do not treat your audience like complete bloody idiots. If you wish to believe such utter drivel, proposed by a charlatan, by all means, but don't inflict it on us.

Well OK 7 pairs of clean animals, and however many unclean, and now we have thousands of species..... (My bible says something like every living thing, but I could be mistaken)

Personally I marvel at Gods creation, that so many wonderful things can have come from so little. That the course and history of the universe could have been determined within a few seconds of creation, and that the beauty and simplicity of mathematical principle is being predicted and proved to within milliseconds of creation. Wherever you look, from the bottom of accelerators to the marvels of what is observable from Hubble, that purity of creation over the 17.5billion years that time has existed is being demonstrated.

That is the miracle of creation - because it is so simple, so pure and so absolutely overarchingly complex, and never to be attained by men. To think that it can be explained completely in a few pages of a book scribbled originally by goatherds and reassembled in the Dark Ages is just, to me, either such fantastic arrogance, or ignorance on a degree which is simply breathtaking.


We are not so great I think that we can know the mind of God.

[Rich]

If you believe what you posted, so be it. How do you explain the dozens of human artifacts discovered incased in coal? Or how 'bout explaining poly-strait trees in coal?

You see, you can't explain lots of things which scientists discovers. The more discoveries, the better the creation and catastrophy message looks to the objective observer.

[Herne]

Human artifacts in coal will impress me when one is found - but as you know such a thing is not possible, since coal predated humans by some margin, and in every case these "artifacts" have turned out to be fakes or photographic chicanery, or a misrepresentation. I am surprised that someone such as yourself has fallen for that one.

I am very impressed by the Hubble project, on which your Government as so thoughtfully spent millions of dollars. Its primary task was to determine the age of the universe - which it has done very effectively. 17.5 billion years is it not? Valuable - indeed possibly the most important scientific instrument ever. I imagine you see it as a waste of time and resources.

[Rich]

Your ignorance of what has been found incased in coal is amazing. One scientist with a masters in science, I don't know which field, has a bell on his desk he found inside a lump of coal. He was going to put it into his coal fired heater and dropped it by accedent. When he dropped it a piece of the handle stuck out of the coal. After he broke the coal apart, he saw the impression of the bell inside the two halves.

Another that I know of was witnessed by two individuals The one guy had enough since to save the coal and the iron ladel in which it was found. The coal, with the ladel still stuck in one side, is in a museum in Glen Rose, Texas.

You might do a little checking about the Electron Mass Spectrometer. You see, just because you believe something doesn't make so. I used ot be an atheistic evolutionist. But, alas, I didn't like looking foolish to myself as the evidence that I was wrong mounted. The Electron Mass Spectrometer is an extrememly sensitive scientific piece of equipment used for detecting and measuring carbon fourteen. Every sample anyone has given shows carbon fourteen. That is because coal and oil were made in Noah's Flood about four and a half thousand years ago by a world wide catostraphic event.

You remember the sign at Carl's Bad Cavern? It used to say the caves were 280,000,000 years old. As man's information improved, the age change to 10,000,000 years. Then a few years later, it was revised to 2,000,000 years. Now the sign is gone. Information is wonderful for the creationist.

Perhaps you remember the petrefied forests at Yellow Stone park? The sign used to say something about the forests growing in place over millions of years. When scientific investigation took place, the sign was removed. The trees, the entire forty square mile forest was the result of a huge flood. It was discovered that none of the trees anywhere in the whole forest had any roots. They looked exactly like the trees on the bottom of Spirit Lake where the trees from Mt.St. Hellens sank after floating for a while. Sediment is already collecting around the broken off roots. If the Lord waits long enough, the peat forming on the bottom could make it look like those trees grew in a low land and were flood later.

Another fun tidbit: All of the trees, even the red woods, have less than 1,700 growth rings. We have living examples of red woods today with over 3,000 growth rings. So what? You might ask. Well, the time from creation to the Flood was 1,656 years. One gelologist I read said he went to every petrified forest in the world discovered the same thing. Science is hard on fairy tales for adults.

About the Hubble Telescope: As far as determining the age of the universe, it is a waite of money. Never the less, it is great for the creationist. It has discovered the same thing good old Dr. Hubble did in 1927. He did it with red shift and the telescope named after him is doing it with otical observation. The Milky Way Galaxie, that's where we live, is surounded by a sphere of galaxies a couple million light years out. Outside of that sphere about three million light years or so is another sphere of galaxies. And beyond that sphere another three million or so light years is another sphere of galaxies. This goes on as far as the Hubble Telescope can see. This observation has now been substantated by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The observation is called quantized galaxies.

You see where we live is the center of God's attention. It is the center of the known universe; verified by three independant sources. After all, it is where Jesus, the Son of God, gave His life to save sinners.

The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Let God be true though every man a liar.

[Herne]

Are you sure you didn't men an acceleration mass spectrometer, commonly used for determining the presence of isotopes, such as C14? They are not the same things.

I don't quite understand this post.We have a reference to millions of light years. It follows then that if light has taken several million years to get us from a distant emitter like a start, it rather predates biblical creation?

I accept that the opening verses of Genesis would allow a creation of of a universe, before anything on earth, but then it goes on to say he created light, and then a firmament (the space containing the stars). So all that was done Monday to Wednesday if I read aright. Then from creation to the flood you have your 1500 years or so.

Which doesn't quite square with millions of light years

BTW, if we might just go back to Noah and his ark. My bible says ..and of beast clean and unclean, .....and of everything that moveth upon the earth, 2 and 2 went in, male and female: as commanded etc. Which gave him a bit of an accomodation problem?

[Rich]

I am talking about an Electron Mass Spectrometer. It is about one thousand times more sensitive than previous instruments. As much as you don't want coal and oil to have carbon 14, it has been measured everytime it's tried. I love to repeat: Facts are hard on evolution.

You are making an assumption about a light year. It is a measurement of distance not time. Based on both evolutionist's and creationist's lectures I have heard we don't know what the speed of light was in the past. I do know that at least three universities have altered the speed of light. Certainly if university students can do it God definitely could. But we dont have to appeal to a miricle working God, here.

There is also the concept of Enstien's gravitational time dialation. He suggested that time would go slower in a "gravity well" compared to time outside the well. If all the matter in the universe is located where the earth is time on earth would go at its present rate, while time as the universe was stretched out, would go billions of times faster. This is not idle speculation. This has been proven time and again with atomic clocks.

I suggest you read the whole story of Noah from Genesis Six through Genesis Nine. Then you might do some checking about what a "kind" is. It includes a lot more than the species. Like all the deer could have come from the seven deer pairs. That would include Irsish Elk, American Elk, moose, and deer. Cow kind could include water buffalo, cape buffalo, cows, bison, ox and the like and come from the seven pairs. All bears from the two pairs. All cats of all sizes from the two pairs.

If two animals of different species can breed, I include them as the same kind.

[ncboman]

:D

British scientists said on Wednesday that they had figured out key steps in the process by which life on Earth may have emerged from a seething soup of simple chemicals, according to Agence France-Presse.

Genetic information in living organisms today is held in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the famous "double helix" molecule of sugar, phosphate and a base.

But DNA is too sophisticated to have popped up in an instant, and one avenue of thought says its single-stranded cousin, ribonucleic acid, or RNA, came first.

RNA plays a key role in making proteins and, in viruses, is used to store genetic code.

It is chemically similar to DNA but is simpler and tougher in structure, and thus looks like a good candidate for Earth's first information-coding nucleic acid.

But for all its allure, the "RNA first" theory has run into practical problems.

Now a paper published in the British journal Nature by University of Manchester chemists, led by Professor John Sutherland, ventures that an RNA-like synthesis took place through a series of chemical reactions and an important intermediate substance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520170,00.html

ncboman

[Rich]

:D
Now a paper published in the British journal Nature by University of Manchester chemists, led by Professor John Sutherland, ventures that an RNA-like synthesis took place through a series of chemical reactions and an important intermediate substance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520170,00.html

ncboman

There's a fun little observation to be made. It took an intelgent scientist in an advanced laboratory with sophisticated equipment to get the results he wanted. What was like that on the primitive earth? Microbes didn't even exist at that time!

How long has it taken since 1953 when the first experiments showed it couldn't be done naturalistically because too many toxic chemicals were developed at the same time? They have showed the same thing agian by using intelegence.:o

[Waidmann]

I thought I'd do a google search on a couple of the "incased in coal" items Rich mentioned. I got two google responses to "bell in iron". They are Bell in Coal (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/bell/bell.htm) and ooparts (http://s8int.com/page8.html), which stands for "Out of Place Artifacts".

No google responses for "iron ladle in coal".

Glen Rosa, TX, by the way, is the human hand print in the rock, not the ladle in coal. At least according to the oooparts site.

I'd be interested in Herne's take on these sites.

Thanks.

Waidmann

[ncboman]

I kinda get a chuckle at some of these things ... but I'm weird I guess.

I also get a chuckle knowing some day, flintknapped paleo points will be found in the woodland age settings of eastern NC. :D

ncboman

[Herne]

I think many people see what they want to see. Rather like some picture of an alien skull on some surface somewhere. To me its just a rock, plain and simple, to some its an alien skull plain and simple.


As for the ageing thing

Life first. The real point is that no-one really knows how it started and no one would claim to know for sure. There are microbes that live in some very toxic or acid/alkaline environments, draw their energy from sulphur dioxide is it, other live at very high temperatures etc. So it would be unwise to rule out bacteria. But this is the advantage of the evolutionary claim - you can say you don't know, you can allow for dead ends, you can allow for transitional species such as marsupials and the early reptiles, or the transition of reptiles into birds. Further you can do it honestly - without weaseling meanings to fit it into a biblical straightjacket. (the argument about adaptation or or evolution, or trying to fit everything onto the Ark. Where Genesis 7 v8&9 says "and of everything that moveth upon the earth". That's a touch inconvenient, so people prefer to look at Verse 14 that talks of animals according to its kind. "Kind" being used as a numerical cop out. Its just intellectually shifty because, read in context and as a continuum, the meaning of the fable is quite clear.Noah loaded a given number of everything that moved into the ark, everything else drowned, and we start again from Noah' stock. Which returns you to adaptation and evolution - and the need to get the come aboard message to South American sloths and Australian flightless birds, which didn't exist because the bible only mentions flying birds, but are nevertheless part of every thing that moveth)

Coal and handprints therein. You have so many different methods of ageing rocks now. You can plot the magnetic alignment, you can look at chemical decomposition, you can look at radioactive isotopes. I was watching a programme on it the other day (in between the rain stopped play in the cricket), and you can also cross correlate between methods quite well. Not unfortunately that they apply to sedimentary rocks. But then you start getting into fossil bed dating, and correlations between strata.

Anyway, without doubt, we are all familiar with C14 dating and its priciples. Its accuracy does drop off, and it is not usable beyond some thousands of years. I can't remember how far, and they are pushing the limits. However, that isn't my point. Many forget that you can use it in exclusion. You can say that, knowing the half life of C14, if the sample shows no detectable C14, then it has to be older than ..xxxx and xxxx of course is far far older tham the oldest accurate date by C14, (so long as it was made of living tissue). Coal falls into that category. And it is older by miles than bones of early man. There are fossilised bones of hominids aren't there, which are older yet, but they are fossils and not bone.

Next point is black coal is black coal, and its pretty ancient. Some peats actually hold the bodies of animals and even some men (Cro Magnon man has been found as such in peat). Brown coal is not nearly as old as proper black coal. Has anyone found a hand print in coal. No of course not. It has to be some shear pattern in a layer. I don't think the earliest homids had even appeared by that stage.

The one I think will be interesting is if they extract good DNA from Neanderthal specimens. That as seems likely, will demonstrate two very closely related but distinct species of man - or have they done so already? I think they have, but are not absolutely confident of a good result. But for all practical purposes they are there even if in a limited way.

As for the speed of light, or of any elctromagnetic radiation - lights velocity can alter specifically where it is affected by considerable gravitational forces. But that doesn't apply in this context. Light travels at a velocity, and if it takes a million years to cover a distance that's a million light years. so if something is a million light years away, then the light we are looking at took a million years to get here, and we will keep seeing it for a million years after it turns off. So lets be real shall we, and stop dragging in the warping of light and space time with light years.

[Indy]

I have read all these posts without replying because nothing in general is accomplished by arguing about evolution except wasting my time. But, for the record, a lot of misteps and falsehoods have been posted, and need to be corrected.

The earth and our galaxy are NOT the center of the universe. The center of the universe is indeterminate because every observer sees all the other galaxies receding away from HIMSELF.

Three universities did NOT measure the speed of light as being different, except that they may have refined the accuracy of it very slightly. Pick any one. The universe is a lot older than 6000 years. Proven fact.

While localized floods have occurred almost everywhere, there is NOT THE SLIGHTEST evidence of one simultaneous world-wide flood 4000 years ago.

Blood has never been found in a dinosaur bone. You are confusing blood with fragments of protein.

The creationists' arguments do not make sense even with themselves. For instance, if C14 can measure the age of coal, then coal is younger than 33,000 years. Since C14 cannot measure the age of dinosaur fossils, they are OLDER THAN 33,000 years.

There have never been intermediate species? You have to ignore millions of them. Just this week an ancestor of monkeys, apes, and humans was discovered.

Neanderthal DNA has demonstrated that they are in fact a separate species. Until about 25,000 years ago, there were three separate species of human: Homo sapiens (us), Homo neanderthalis, and Homo erectus. The first two, incidentally, seem to have had the concept of an afterlife, and thus some concept of a supreme being, because they buried their dead. What species was Adam?

People who believe in Noah's ark and don't believe in evolution always try to "pack" the ark by claiming that the deer later became deer, moose, etc., and that the lion ate vegeation (instead of eating Noah) and only later became able to digest raw meat. That's evolution, in both cases.

That's enough for now.

Personally, I believe in Jesus. I believe that Genesis and Revelation have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, however. How did these books get picked? 350 years after the death of Jesus, a group of medieval Catholic bishops examined all the religious writings then extant. Some, like the Gospels of Judas or Thomas, they threw out. Others, like Revelation, they put in. Why is there any basis for assuming they chose correctly?

[Herne]

I would wish to make a correction, or an explanation, concerning the velocity of light.

By definition, the velocity of light as measured by any two observers, either on earth or in space, is always the same, and unchanging. The distance it travels in a time can alter - which is pretty weird concept. And also therefore, by definition, time need not be a constant at any two differing points. It runs slower nearer to large gravitational forces (see the famous experiment running two clocks at the top and bottom of a tower - the lower ran faster).

That is a part of, or a very short summary of the conclusions of the Theory of Relativity

However, none of the above means that time is altered to such a degree that it slowed down for a few billion years to give a creationist friendly date. Just that light can disappear into things like black holes though gravitational forces, or be bent to give lens effects, so you can use it to determine the presence of certain things like dark matter or black holes.

[Herne]

Correction - the lower ran slower being nearer to the gravitational force.

[Wismon]

Herne, in prior discussions with Indy I told him that the Special Theory of Relativity can be explained quite easily as long as one doesn’t resort to jargon. You’ve just proved my point, and in just a few sentences, at that. As I also mentioned to him, the General Theory of Relativity can only be explained in mathematical terms, using non-Euclidian geometry, so screw it, who wants to go to that much trouble for something so esoteric anyway?

But science and religion are not separate; as we’ve discussed before, there is only one truth - nothing can simultaneously be true and false. And, as we’ve also discussed - many times - Darwinian evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And “evolution” that is “guided” is not evolution, but rather, creation.

If the Biblical account of creation is true than projections of eons of time prior to it are meaningless since the Second Law of Thermodynamics would not have come into existence prior to the fall of man and certainly there could have been no Darwin evolution prior to this as there was no death up until that point. And what must also be taken into account when discussing the Biblical account of creation is that prior to the flood there was likely no rain. Also, while there were seas there were likely no oceans as the earth was encompassed by water above the sky and below the earth. And lest you think I’m pulling this out of my a$$, read the first six chapters of Genesis - it’s described exactly so.

Now, you can choose to believe that or not, but kindly do those of us who do believe it the courtesy of not scoffing at us for our belief, especially here on the Christian forum. And to your credit you haven’t done that; but Indy has.

[TinStar]

One thing that always amazed me is how scientists(who claim to have an open mind) always seem to look for and test for the result they desire to achieve. Like Rich said they set their lab experiment under what they called ideal conditions to get the reults that they wanted. Perhaps if they erased from their minds the pre-concieved notion that we evolved during billions or millions of years they may have a different opinion. There are many things that SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN; so in my humble opinion I'll place creation in that catergory also. One thing we need to get over is that evolution is a theory and quit acting as if it's fact. The danger of it is to convince people that there is no creation, therefore no God, therefore no moral boundary and man is in charge. Yeah, right. The wisdom of this world will be brought low and made to look foolish. And likely pretty soon too.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

[Waidmann]

You know, I remember a time when the matter of evolution vrs creation and the literalness of the Genesis creation stories were totally separate discussions. Everyone I know believed that God had created the heavens and the earth. When? In the beginning. We didn't know when that was, but it was a loooooooooong time ago.

So creation was a given.

At the same time, nobody I knew really thought the universe was only 6,000 + years old. The evidence for an ancient universe and earth was indisputable. In fact, back in my formative years (the 1950s), the only people who believed the earth was young were the SDA, and just about every Baptist or Catholic I knew at the time regarded them as a cult of some sort or another. I single out Baptists and Catholics because that was just about everyone I knew. From what I've read, just about all the "Creation Science" stuff is straight out of the SDA handbook.

But the real interesting thing was, nobody that I knew regarded the age of the universe a matter of doctrine worth arguing about. I think the rise of Young Earth Creationist is a direct result of the rise of Dispensationalism.

At the very least, the adherants of one seem to be the adherants of the other.

Waidmann

[Wismon]

... The evidence for an ancient universe and earth was indisputable...
How so, exactly? Were you and your associates around 6,000 years ago and earlier?



But the real interesting thing was, nobody that I knew regarded the age of the universe a matter of doctrine worth arguing about.
Well then y'all all must have been very confident folk indeed, to not consider what is written in the first chapter of the Bible even worthy of so much as cursory discussion.

Everyone's entitled to their beliefs but to dismiss one side's views as not worthy of consideration is to act with childlike...arrogance.

[ncboman]

Arrogance in the Christian Forum? :D

You should have seen it 8 or 9 years ago. :rolleyes:

ncboman

[Waidmann]

Wismon,

Take a look at what leading Christian thinkers were saying 100 years ago, and find me a handful who believed in the 6,000 year old model. I think you'll have a hard time. In fact, I recently read about the controversy over at AIG when they were running Spurgeon's sermons, and misquoting them because he said things that indicated his belief in an old universe. The AIG people were sorta forced to put a foot note in there that essentially said that even though Spurgeon held a belief that the universe was old, he had a lot of good to say. Or something like that. That's all I'm saying. The young earth position is a new one in church history.

And of course, I suspect your statement about "not consider(ing) what is written in the first chapter of the Bible even worthy of so much as cursory discussion" to be pure hyperbole. You must know that the Genesis account has been discussed to death for a couple thousand years at least. It's just that the consensus was that it didn't represent historical events that occured in six 24-hour days a tad over 6K years ago.

I think my basic point is valid. Young Earth Creationism and Dispensationalism are joined at the hip.

Waidmann

[Wismon]

…the Genesis account has been discussed to death for a couple thousand years at least…

How could you tell me it’s only been discussed for a couple of thousand years? Virtually everyone on the soda dispensers’ sensational list agree that it’s been discussed for billions of trillions of years, at least. Therefore it must be so!

[Herne]

The problem I have with the Creationist view is this: (and it is quite simple)

You have, both on earth and in space certain observable phenomena. Let us not talk about evolution, and living things. Lets talk about doppler shifts, lets talk about blue spikes, lets talk of formation of helium in stars, of radioactive decay in rocks, or earth core temperatures, subduction and continental drift.

These things are observable, and you can calculate relatively easily energies temperature changes, and you can confirm many if not all of those calculations on earth and produce repeatable results, from which you can draw conclusions. And one of those conclusion refers to time - red and blue shifts and the like. Gravity even - you have a law of gravity that works on earth. You predict if you go across the solar system that x or y should hold. And it does - slingshots off Jupiter, gravity on the moon. And once you have proved predictions about gravity, by definition you have made predictions and statements about time and the movements of objects in space. You cannot avoid that. Certainly Quantum Mechanics and classical Newtonian physics don't correlate exactly - but no one is trying to hide that.

As in - you know the frequencies given off by the fusion of hydrogen, you know a rate of decay. you are looking for a band of microwave radiation of a given frequency and you find it. It don't take the brains of an archbishop to work out that a sodding great hydrogen bomb went off 17.5 billion years ago.

As in - you drop an apple off a tree and it accelerates at 32fps^2, or 9,81mps^2. Once you have said that, you have defined the age of the universe. So gents, either your bullet drops at 32 fps^2 or it doesn't. nor can you comparmentalise it. Gravity is not just about a bullet drop on a range, or an apple in a garden. That value is also the value of time - that is what time is.

This is where the Creationist argument falls down - you don't have answers beyond "Goddunnit". Well I have no doubt he did, - but not in the form the creationists want it to be.

He certainly created the laws of mathematics, by which the course of the universes progress was controlled and determined virtually within milliseconds of the Big Bang. And someone had to create a singularity where those rules broke down.


Further, the more science or whatever that turns up, the more that is known about rates of erosion, or for instance switches in direction in the earths magnetic field and the effect that has on magnetic fields in rocks, to name but two areas, the less tenable the creationist argument is, because these things cross correlate. Initially to destroy and argument you only have to cut a single thread. Once things start to cross correlate you have to unravel the whole carpet.

Equally the creationists have cracked their own stall. The Bible is literally true? All that has to happen is for one fact to be demonstrated to be implausible and the whole thing falls. Take the wording of Noah and his ark - every living thing. Now that's very simple wording, and it is not possible to alter or mistake its meaning. Hell you ain't even going to get the insects on board onto a rowboat that big, so forget it.

And of course, if its "the Bible" that means any bible, translated into any language? So every time anyone decides to make a new translation, does he have to be inspired ot get it exactly right? the requirement seems ot me to need God ot speak directly to an awful lot of people. Does he authorise them in some way, or do you authorise yourself - and is that on the basis not that you are a Christian, but only a Greek or Latin scholar?

So you HAVE to find anther answer if the truth of, or within, the Bible is to stand.

So its over to the Creationists. That the world is as it is defines that view as an impossibility. The value in electron volts of particle movement which makes the computer that the Creationist uses also defines time by another route (Quntum Mechanics), and destroys his argument. The value of the chemical bonds which hold his body together means his argument is simply not possible. Not not credible, but not possible.

So until particle physics, which are Gods laws, are redefined... there are a lot of Nobel Prizes out there for someone.

[Wismon]

Well first of all, I didn't say that I was a proponent of the young earth point of view. What I pointed out was that if the first six chapters of Genesis are literally true (as opposed to being metaphors) then the Universe at the beginning didn't act under the same physical laws that now govern.

I find it interesting that millions of Catholics the world over profess to believe in transubstantiation, that is, the literal conversion of bread and wine into Christ's physical body within our stomach - clearly a physical miracle of the highest order - and no on thinks anything of that, yet to believe that physical miracles occured at the beginning of time is held up to ridicule.

As I've said many, many times, true religion and true science can not be in conflict, otherwise at lest one of them isn't true. So spare yourself the typing regarding Doppler shifts and the like...who cares? I didn't claim the Universe can't be buggerbillions of years old; I'm just pointing out that those that believe that the Earth was created by God should read Genesis carefully, and not with a spirit of arrogance. The Bible is either worth reading or it's not. And if it's not true it's not worth reading.

I'll leave it to others to wrestle with the accuracy of translations; I'm interested in learning about it in it's orginal form. If King Jame's men or the Wycliff translaters or the Cottonpatch hippies got it wrong, then that's on them; that's human error. But since I don't speak Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic I'll have to rely on various translations (certainly NOT the Cottonpatch version, incidentally). But I believe that in it's original form, as breathed by God, it is infallible.

[Rich]

Well, gentlemen,

You come on here and try to refute Truth with error. You assume God did not create a mature universe. You assume there was no global flood which changed the structure of the earth. You assume that what is now happening has always happened. Things which cannot be prooved.

There is no way to take measurements today and know that they were consistant in the unobservable past. One could call the creation " a singularity" and there is no way to refute it from science.

The idea that one would reject the observable red shifts and the Sloan's Digital Sky Survey showing the earth to be at or very near the center of the known universe is rejecting science. One can try to appeal to the big bang createing a five dimention universe to get around the scientifically observable expanding universe away from our location, but that is philosophy or religion. No one can see the fifth dimention of hyper space. It is like the Oort Cloud: an ad hoc invention to get away from observable science. If the earth is just 2,000,000 light years in any direction away from where it is, the quantize effect would blur and we would only see what the big bang proponents beleive in. But the problem for them is, we are where we are and the red shifts and the Sloan's Digital Sky Survey do show we are at the center.

[Waidmann]

Wismon,

Do you believe that Genesis 1-6 can be both True and a metaphor?

Waidmann

[Indy]

Rich, with respect, please cut it out.

There is no sky survey that shows the earth at or near the center of the universe.

While it is true that the universe is receding away from us in every direction, it is also receding away from every other location. There is no center.

Anywhere.

[Indy]

Wisman, let me respectfully correct an error you made in an earlier post, one which is made often by some others. You wrote:

"Darwinian evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Not true.

The Second Law teaches us that every process creates more disorder, not order, so you have concluded that evolution from a simple form to a more complex (more ordered) form is not possible.

You forgot that it is quite possible for a process to create more order in one place as long as less order is created somewhere else. So evolution does not violate the Second Law any more than constructing a house out of a disheveled pile of boards does.

That's the only way I can explain it without resorting to mathematics. It's usually taught in junior-level physics and engineering classes.

[Wismon]

Waidmann, uhh, yeah, I suppose...I don't know.

Indy, if there was at big bang it would have occurred at your nonexistant center.

[Indy]

There has been some argument that physical laws changed after the Genesis creation, which is alleged to have occurred 6000 years ago. It's very simple to disprove this.

Remember that light moves at 186,000 miles per second. When we look at the moon, we see it as it was 1.5 seconds ago. We see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago and the nearest star as it was 4 years ago, all due to their respective distances.

With our present instruments we can see objects much farther away, and observe how some objects appeared billions of years ago. It's possible for us to tell, with instruments, whether or not the laws of physics changed during that time simply by observing objects as they were billions of years ago.

The didn't.

[Wismon]

Indy's so smart that he forgot that light - and it's speed of propagation - are physical properties. If other physical properties could have changed so too could have that one. I'm not saying it did, mind you, I'm just pointing out Indy's logical fallacy.

[Rich]

Indy,

Where in the world did you get your idea of the 2nd law not being violated if there is an icrease in order in one area as long as there is a decrease in another area? The theory of evolution requires a local increase of information. A lot of increase! You mentioned a house. How long are the boards, nails, wire, etc, etc going to lay out in the sun before they turn into a house while a hotel accross town falls apart? Give it a rest.

[Waidmann]

Indy and Herne,

Here is a definition of Evolution I copied from somewhere or another on-line. Do you agree with it? I'm wondering if you two and Rich/Wismon are talking about two different things.

evolution (v-lshn)
1. The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitnessthey allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized. See also natural selection/sexual selection See Notes at adaptationDarwin Charles Robert
2. A process of development and change from one state to another, as of the universe in its development through time.
A Closer Look Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection assumed that tiny adaptations occur in organisms constantly over millions of years. Gradually, a new species develops that is distinct from its ancestors. In the 1970s, however, biologists Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed that evolution by natural selection may not have been such a smooth and consistent process. Based on fossils from around the world that showed the abrupt appearance of new species, Eldridge and Gould suggested that evolution is better described through punctuated equilibrium. That is, for long periods of time species remain virtually unchanged, not even gradually adapting. They are in equilibrium, in balance with the environment. But when confronted with environmental challengessudden climate change, for exampleorganisms adapt quite quickly, perhaps in only a few thousand years. These active periods are punctuations, after which a new equilibrium exists and species remain stable until the next punctuation.

The key point in this discussion being "Natural Selection". Darwin specifically postulated that evolution in biological terms didn't involve a Creator at all. It was entirely a natural process.

Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe, except for the tangential point that "natural selection" occured over a long period, hence, a 6,000 year old world probably isn't old enough to account for the multiple life-forms we have here.

Waidmann

[Herne]

Did Indy say there was no ORIGIN to the universe?. What he said was that there is no determined centre.

And since we seem to have descended into name calling pretty quickly, IMO, one has to be feeble minded not to understand the concept of an origin, yet with every point receding from any other.

Just imagine a balloon being blown up. There is an expansion from an origin, and every point is receding from everywhere else. Its not that difficult.

(The original problem was not with the idea of an expanding universe, but that it was expanding at all when it was thought to be static. In fact, if you do a little maffs - conceptually - since force = mass by acceleration, and since gravity exists, a static universe is not possible. It must contract in the face of gravity, or it must expand at a rate which overcomes gravity, but it cannot sit still. BTW you don't need to be Einstein to understand that. All you need are those 4 basic equations that you met at skool. v+u+at, s=ut +1/2at^2. Actually that's enough there. There is a 3rd possibility and I leave you to work that out for yourselves.

As for the changes in the laws of physics. Yes they do break down completely - at a singularity. But since that singularity (the Big Bang) the laws are unchanged and unchanging. There are so many proofs that we don't need to go into them here.

If your bible is to be literally true, fine. Get out there and prove it. Its quite easy. Earn your Nobel prize and demonstrate that E doesn't equal MC^2. If you can do that the whole structure of time falls down and you will have won, and your bullet doesn't drop at 9.81m/sec^2. If you cannot, you are wrong and are believing a fable, and your bullet does drop at 9.81m/sec -1. Its that simple, and presumably not difficult if you are right?

Blackboard, chalk, mouth, money. Off you go - all you need is a level, a chronograph and a ruler. Crack on.

[Herne]

Waidmann - what people love to do is to compartmentalise.

The definition of natural selection has changed because we know a lot more about it. You could not consider evolution now, without including the theory of the selfish gene, and selection is taking place at many levels and in many ways. The concept of classical tiny steps over a long time is clearly the easiest to understand, but it has also become clear that there are several other mechanism which lead to change.

One is talking about a changing and developing science, so for others, there is no point in latching onto a classical theory as expounded 150 years ago, and claiming that is what evolution is in the 21st century. Thats just intellectually feeble at best, and a con trick at worst.

Its as feeble as taking off into transubstantiation at this point. We haven't got that far team - we are still in week 1 more or less. arguing about the tale of Noah, and his rowboat sinking under the weight of an army of ants. Every living thing, gentlemen, whatever the translation.

Ah yes, our cubits are wrong and the sheer strength of cedar of lebanon dowels has declined over the years. I suppose the wood has changed - the tree evolved, no doubt.

[Herne]

You talked about Relativity and special Relativity. We are getting into a detail , but the primary difference was this cosmic constant which was erroneous.

As I recall Relativity predicted that the universe should be expanding. At the time everyone thought it was static. So Einstein introduced this complex mathematical constant to stop relativity from predicting the movement. Then of course along came Hubble and his red shift, and thus it because irrefutable that the Universe was expanding and that dv/dt was increasing.

So everyone went back to the simpler theory which was first, and right. And with it the interchangeability of matter and velocity and the like, and which is the reason that we are where we are, and why our computers work, and why, according to most observers, our bullets do drop at 9.81m/s^2.

[Herne]

Indy's so smart that he forgot that light - and it's speed of propagation - are physical properties. If other physical properties could have changed so too could have that one. I'm not saying it did, mind you, I'm just pointing out Indy's logical fallacy.

Wismon please don't be obtuse and go about missing a sound point deliberately.

We are looking at light from the moon that is 8 seconds old.

We are looking at light from the sun which is minutes old.

We are looking at light from stars which is billions of years old.

We are also looking at light which is hundreds, and thousands of years old, and several thousands etc, and every bit in between.

Because we are seeing it all at the same time.

And all that light is all is all doing the same thing and following consistent rules, and exhibiting the same effects. So you know the rules haven't changed for billions of years.

Unless it magically did a hop skip and a jump in between in the odd gap. Most unlikely given the millions of events which have tracked true. So you need to come up with a REALLY good reason why it might have done so. No one has as yet.

Very simple idea - do try to stay with it.

Speed of light change - just as well perhaps you don't suggest it alters. But if you did, it would have to be the most half witted idea created, because the whole of relativity is based on the fact that the speed of light as observed by any observer is always fixed and unchanging, but the distance it travels in any period is not fixed because of the effect of gravity. (light - matter - gravity) Hence space time and the warping of light etc. And several other effects that have been repeatably observed predicted and found.

Nothing too important, just the time it takes for the earth to go round the sun, and the loss of energy of the earths orbit and its changing track - that sort of silly thing.

So either these things didn't happen, or you're wrong. That's a very simple idea too, so try to stay with it, as well.

[Waidmann]

Herne,

I'm not speaking for Wismon (or anyone but myself), but I grew up in fundamentalist circles. So, I'm speaking from personal experience.

The answer to all your (and Indy's) posts is simple. God created the universe with the appearance of age. All your points are valid about the apparant age of the universe, however it is all wrong because God did a miracle when He created. He made it appear old. He created the light from those distant stars en route to earth, so they arrived 6,000 years later, with the appearance of having traveled 17 billion years to get hear.

This is not without Biblical precedence . He presumedly created Adam and Eve as reproductive-age adults. That would make them at least, what? Fifteen? Furthermore, Jesus' first public miracle was changing water into a fine wine. Wine, as we know, takes time to age for the fermentation process to complete. So the water was changed into apparently aged wine. If He did it twice, why not create the universe with the same appearance of age?

BTW, just to make my stand clear, I don't believe He did this. Although I admit, He might have.

Waidmann

[Rich]

An evolutionist, who claims to be an athiest, said in one of his lectures something to the effect:

"I am fasinated by Christians who claim to beleive in an Infinite God. He could have created all there is five minutes ago, complete with memories in creatures with brains. And yet these same folks fall all over themselves to accept anti-God evolutionary concepts."

As a Christian I am discusted with folks who claim to belive they are the advance humans when genetics shows we have almost 4,000 mutations. When God created Adam and Eve, they did not have any. Remember God declaired it all "Very Good." From Adam and Eve came every ethnic group in the world. In fact geneticists know it happened in the first generation if they had fifty or sixty kids. I read somewhere they had seventy-two.

According to the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, the author traced the rate of mutation accumulations. He concluded it would take about 6,000 years to get to the level we now have if one starts with none. The author has a Ph.D. in genetics and develoved over fifty patents for gene manipulation.

The idea that we are superier to folks even 3,500 years ago is silly. They were proably five times as intelegent as we are; on an I.Q. scale. As for body strength, when God told us about Samson tearing the lion he used the equation that Samson tore the lion like a man tears a kid. If no one could tear a kid, the statement made no sence. Today none of the folks I know can tear a kid.

We are the ninety-eight pound weekling ignorant goat hearders, cab drivers, scientists, teachers, etc claiming to be advanced modern intelectuals.

One of the Chinese who was lecturing in the U.S. said the American schools and colleges no longer teach. They force the students to memorize and recite what they are told. They have no knowledge. Sad.

[Wismon]

Indy,

Use all the math you want. Like you, I have a degree in physics; unlike you I also have one in engineering and am a licensed, practicing structural engineer. But a bigger difference between us is that I allow you to state your qualifications, unchallenged, and in the past you’ve called me a liar for stating mine. Now, I don’t particularly feel like typing a bunch of Greek letters to hammer out the mathematics of it all but don’t “condescend” to me and claim to have done it with respect.

And, as we’ve covered a bazillion times before, the 2nd Law is a statistical process. There’s no way to “outcrank” it - the more you run it the less order there is; any localization gets erased before it can have any meaning. In other words, when, for example, a volcano erupts some of the lava may form spring-like shapes but they won’t be around long enough to combine with other flying detritus and form a Rolex.

…and speaking of condescending…

Herne,

Here’s a very simple idea - do try to stay with it: I’ll thank you not to take a snooty tone with me. Any nine-year-old understands the concept of light years; you and Indy both insult the intelligence of the people on this board by lecturing us about it. And for you to repeat it after Indy did it and I specifically responded to it is astounding. Let’s review, and to use your term, “do try to stay with it”:

1. The claim was made that if Genesis is literal then that at least some of scientific laws we now live under didn’t exist. This, based on the text itself, not on some fanciful notion.

2. Indy attempted to refute (1) by using a current scientific law.

3. I pointed out to him that you can’t use a current scientific law to disprove the notion that in the past scientific laws were different.

4. You repeated point (2) and claimed I couldn’t follow it.

5. Therefore I hereby repeat point (3).

Now, let me quickly repeat two other points I made and they’re also very simple so do try to stay with them:

6. I did not say that I subscribe to point (1) above; I’m simply pointing it out.

7. If (1) above is true it would be supernatural; a miracle that is held up to ridicule by modern “enlightened” people. And yet every Catholic professes to believe in the physical miracle of transubstantiation. So why not the ridicule of them by the enlightened, for consistency's sake?

[Herne]

Waidmann - not getting at you at all.

But the appearance of age has to be the most bloody stupid argument that has ever been thought up. If ever there was a case of the problem being made to fit the answer that has to be it. Judas Iscariot.

That's like saying that God made the earth old, but it appears young - since many of the creationists find hand prints in coal, and all sorts of evidence that the earth is actually young. Only the really determinedly dull could look at a ton of evidence, all of which cross correlates, and then say it means something else.

Rather like touching a kettle and finding its hot and it burns and it hurts. And then saying its cold and you only think you got burned, when there are physical laws governing temperature energy and hot kettles. :eek:

Thats the logic of desperation.

As for the ageing of wine - they don't need to scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to read meanings into the fermentation process. So there is another take: Jesus decided to serve up a good brew, and was capable of doing it. ie if you are going to knock out a miracle, with water, don't make plonk. I don't suppose the Good Lord is limited by the constraints of the fermentation process.

As for Adam and Eve rolling about in the hay. The literalists are very keen to rule stuff out because it isn't in the Bible when it suits. So that means they also cannot rule stuff in when they need. I don't think it says how old Adam and Eve were. On that basis I could invent a whole new cult based on 2 super babies who could pork before they crawled? They just appeared old - for convenience.

BTW why have men got an even number of ribs. God only took one for Eve and there is no mention of what happened to the other.


---------------

Wismon - we used to get along fine, even when you seemed to have difficulty rubbing along with others. Somewhere down the road, you lost your manners. Go find and then we'll start again.

Now, you have a degree in physics, so you above all will know the implications of that statement about gravity time and matter. Please address it if you wish your view to be taken seriously.

BTW, I don't have a degree in physics, but I do have a Masters in Guided weapons engineering. Radio waves and that sort of stuff. You can put the maffs in if you wish. I shan't need to take my socks off to keep count beyond 10. Nor I imagine will Indy. But if you cannot demonstrate that E is not equal to MC^2, wind your neck in, because there is a universe built on it, and you will need to find your truth elsewhere than in the pages of a fable..

[TinStar]

Herne,

Has it ever occurred to you how many scientists have become creationists because of the evidence? Try looking at answersingenesis.com. Not all scientists are evolutionists.
God says that in the last days he will send delusion; meaning he will allow men to believe lies if they constantly want to disbelieve Him. He also talks about making the wisdom of this world foolishness. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

[Waidmann]

Herne,


But the appearance of age has to be the most bloody stupid argument that has ever been thought up.

Hey, I didn't think it up. Nor, for that matter, do I believe it. Both of which I thought I made clear in my post. I guess my mistake was to offer an explanation for a phenomenom that I was unwilling to defend. My bad, and I apologize.


BTW why have men got an even number of ribs. God only took one for Eve and there is no mention of what happened to the other.

Obviously, God didn't modify Adam's DNA at the germ level (I think that means that the DNA is modified in such a way that the modification becomes an inheritable trait). So subsequent generations have the original number of ribs.

However, I mentioned the missing rib so I could tell you this story. My grandfather fought in WWI in the trenches of Europe. As was fairly common, he developed pneumonia or some such pulmonary disease. The treatment at the time was to cut a hole in the patients lung, lay him on a strecher and let the lung drain. The lucky, strong patients survived, the rest didn't. My grandfather was one of the former. But, for the rest of his life, he had a sunken section of his chest about the size of a golfball where the doctors had cut out a section of ribs for the drainage tubing. We grew up thinking he had been wounded during the war at the time he was awarded the Iron Cross, and that was what had caused the scar to the chest--it was much later that we heard the true story. Obviously, the children he had later, and the grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) didn't inherit a missing rib. :D

Waidmann

[Herne]

Waidmann, promise you I wasn't having a go at you personally, and I understood the view was not yours. So I do apologise if it seems I was shooting the messenger for carrying the message.

I'm glad your Grandpa was one of the lucky or strong ones. Rib or no. Natural selection? :)

[Herne]

Tin - not for one second am I denying God, or the existence of Jesus christ.

Credo in unum Deum.

I beleive absolutely that God created the universe, and that it "performs" or functions according to his laws, and has done so consitently for billions of years.. Einstein and all the other physicists didn't make or invent the laws - they observed and discovered and stated what they were. The laws are greater than they are - of course.

What is clear, is that, if you look at those laws, then the state that we are in now is direct function of the course of those laws - so God has not fiddled with anything. Not to make things appear old, or invent people or anything else.(Just as well or man would not have freedom of choice) And hte same laws and NUMERICAL VALUES that make your bullet drop at 32fpss, are the same laws and values that allow astronauts to go to the moon, to get slingshots off Satuun, that control the nature and speed and warpig of light etc etc. And if those hold true then the universe cannot be 4000 odd years old, and therefore the Genesis HAS to be a fable - the imaginings or limit of knowledge of a bunch of goatherders in the bronze age.

So to me, its not me or Indy who is rejecting Gods laws or whatever, its the Creationist or young Earthist.

How are they Gods laws - because the Bing Bang is a singularity and at a singularity the laws break down. Equally its no good trying to argue that the big bang didn't happen. The universe is expanding from a point in all directions. There was a centre- of course, but we cannot see far enough to know where it was - so we are somewhere in that balloon expanding away from everyone else. Hence the centre of the universe NOW is indeterminate to us.

Next point about the big Bang. If you get into particle physics, as you step down the particle sizes you need to apply more energy to get them to part. Ie they want to form their little clumps. But at each stage, as one goes down the scale, or up the energy levels, the theory predicts other particles. In each case, as the technology arrived to actually achieve that increased energy level, those particeles have been discovered at the predicted level. (They exist as free items for millionths of a second - not my kind of thrill!) However, with the quarks and besons and whatnots, I do not think they are predicting any more particles are they? So particle physics has replicated conditions to within nanosecods of the Big bang - of Creation itself. So the formation of elements now, is a simple thing in princiople - it represents the drop in energy levels since the Big Bang. The numbers say it should happen, and you can find the numbers, and you can replicate the conditions. Now thats very dfficult to argue with - especially when the alternative is a Bronze age manual, which just says "Goddunit"

Now we know how he dunnit (well, much of it) - which doesn't mean we can do it ourselves.

Scientist creationists. Well I don't know what they beleive. I cant see too many physicsts who could square that with intelligent design, or biologists, or geneticists, or geologists. I dunno Tin, but what is for sure is that you cannot zero a rifle without in effect, making a statement about the age of the universe. Its that fundamental.

[Rich]

Herne,

Why do you continiue to reject sound observable science? Hubble discovered the quantized red shifts of the galacies about eighty years ago. It was confirmed again in the 1970's and again in the 1990's and now with the digital sky survey. We are at the center!

You seem to think God could not create a mature universe. Why could He not create it in it's present form 6,000 years ago? We could call the creation the singularity since it happened once. As far as the universe stretching out, the same Book that teaches He created about 6,000 years ago teaches He stretched out the universe. In fact, He claims it seventeen times.

Perhaps you have heard of gravitational time dialation. It has been confirmed several times by atomic clocks. When God created the earth at the center of the universe and stretched it out from here, time would run millions or billions or trillions of times fasters as it was stretched out. If a person were on a planet, if any existed, on the outer reaches of space, time would seem normal to him there. Just as time here was running normal for here. Now, since things are not stretching out as fast as they were, the time dialation is down to about 2 1/2-3% faster than time on earth (according to a lecture I heard from a young universe Ph.D astrophyisist). This is science right from of the theory of relitivity. That means there would be pleanty of time in a gravitational time dialation universe for light to come from the furtherest stars and be here on Day Six so Adam and Eve would see them declaring the Glory of God. There is no need for billions of years; except to deny God's Word.

Today I read a booklet that showed the early church fathers thought God created in a second or two. Martin Luther suggested they need to learn the Holy Spirit is more learned then them.

[Wismon]

Wismon - we used to get along fine, even when you seemed to have difficulty rubbing along with others. Somewhere down the road, you lost your manners.
No Herne, you lost your manners; I simply responded in kind. Do try to follow along.


...that statement about gravity time and matter. Please address it if you wish your view to be taken seriously.
Which statement, in particular? There have been many on this thread that dealt with gravity, time, and matter. And I don't care whether or not you take me seriously. I do, however, care about the tone you use.


You can put the maffs in if you wish.
"Maffs?" I would have to know what that is before I could wish (or not) for it to be put in. Resorting to using acronyms and jargon is a juvenile control technique. People who are actually interested in engaging in a conversation use commonly-known terms; not jargon. Jargon is for those too insecure to have a genuine discussion so they try to obfuscate the issue in an attempt to prevent people from challenging them.


But if you cannot demonstrate that E is not equal to MC^2, wind your neck in...
Hey, ye who resorteth to strawmen arguments, why don't you show me where I said E is not equal to Mc^2. Oh, and note too, in the spirit of bandying about jargon, that the constant for the speed of light is properly represented by a lower case "c", not the incorrect upper case "C" you used, smartypants.

[Herne]

OK Rich - then we are at the centre, and everything is receding away form us (from the centre). So originally all the matter in the universe was at the centre, at a point and the Big Bang happened and the universe is not 6000 years old. (Because you could not get all that matter at a point without something like a mega black hole (singularity) or something like version of a neutron star. Not if gravity is the force that it is, and has been.

So genesis is incorrect.

Is that what you are saying?.

Wismon - you know what to do. There must be a corner somewhere where you can do it in private.

[Rich]

Herne,

From where did the big bang singularity come? You have to appeal to a miracle. The God of the Bible created the heavens and earth with the gravity in order for the gravitational time dialation to work. Either way, you have to a appeal to a miracle.

You see if the big bang sprange from nothing that is miracle without a Miracle Working God. If it was eterally old, it would have lost its energy to explode and etenity ago because even a black hole losses to radiation. The sigularity would have all the mass of all the black holes, planets, astroids, stars, galaxies, Oort Clouds and anything else you can invent.

If the laws a nature did not exist until the explosian, then the sub-atomic particles would have to exceed light speed to get away from the gravity which just came into being. The energy to accomplish that would be infinite, thus the sub-atomic particles would only bulg and then colapse back on themselves.

If you want to have a miracle, why not beleive in a miracle written from the Miracle Worker Himself. That requires a lot less blind faith. Like Wismon posted, when Jesus turned the water into wine, it was a miracle. It only appeared to have taken weeks. When Adam and Eve were created, they were instructed to multipy. Obviously they appeared to have a couple decades experience oflife, and yet they were second or minutes old.
God claims to send a tricky influence on those folks who wish to believe a lie.

[Wismon]

Wismon - you know what I like to do? Privates, in a corner somewhere.
Herne - that’s too much information; no one wants to hear about that.

[ncboman]

Why does Venus spin in the opposite direction of earth?

ncboman

[Rich]

ncboman,

I will speculate since that's all I can do. I don't know why God did a lot of things, but this I know: It shows it did not come from the sun; according to the theory of evolution. If that was the case, all planets would revolve in the same direction. There are several solar bodies which have retro grade "spins".

I read somewhere that one of the moon's orbiting one of the larger planets has crater impacts on only one side. That is evidence that the meteorite shower that came through because of God's curse didn't last very long. It also shows that it is not millions of years old. If it was millions of years old it would be covered by craters. The earth gets hit by hundreds every years. That moon is in the same solar system we are, so must get a similar amount.

[Indy]

ncboman,

I will speculate since that's all I can do. I don't know why God did a lot of things, but this I know: It shows it did not come from the sun; according to the theory of evolution. If that was the case, all planets would revolve in the same direction. There are several solar bodies which have retro grade "spins".

I read somewhere that one of the moon's orbiting one of the larger planets has crater impacts on only one side. That is evidence that the meteorite shower that came through because of God's curse didn't last very long. It also shows that it is not millions of years old. If it was millions of years old it would be covered by craters. The earth gets hit by hundreds every years. That moon is in the same solar system we are, so must get a similar amount.

Venus spins in a 3:2 resonance with earth's orbital period due to the tidal effects of earth. The overwhelming majority of planetary orbits and spins are in the same direction and the few which aren't are easily explainable.

It is not uncommon for solar system bodies to show much more cratering on one side than another. The best example is the earth's moon,. which has more craters on the side we never see from earth (the moon's spin being tidally locked so the same face always appears to earth). There was a period of intense cratering several billion years ago followed by a lot of volcanism and large lava flows. The lava flows were heaviest on the side facing earth, due to earth's gravity, and tended to covered up many of the craters on our side. There are far fewer of these lava flows, which ancient people called "seas," on the other side.

Science can explain how the universe and the solar system has evolved very well. The role of theology is to explain why.

[Rich]

Indy,

Like so many, you try to refute truth with error. You come to the discussion with the presuposition that God's Word is not correct. You are convinced that the order of creation is wrong. You are convinced the geneologies are not complete or there is some other problem. Therefore we need to appeal to sinful men who were not there when God created. You want us to beleive these sinful men when they tell us God is not able to tell us when and in what order He created. A straight forward reading of God's Word tells us God created the earth first and four days later He created the sun, moon and stars. By using God's Word, we can determine He created everything about six thousand years ago.

Consider the following examples of scientific facts, that when taken at face value, indicate a young solar system and a young universe. We will not apppeal to God's Word for this.

The first one is the deterioration of short term comets. The short term comets are those like Halley's Comet which come around about every fifty years to two hundred years. Dr. Kindell likened comets to dirty snowballs. These comets orbit the sun in highly elliptical orbits. Their tails always point away from the sun because the sun's radiation or solar wind actually blows material off the comet which forms the tail. Obviously they can't orbit forever since they are loosing mass. Eventually they will be gone. Astronomers have actually observed comets breaking up and disintegrating. It's interesting that all the short term comets would be completely disintegrated within as little as ten thousand years.

The fact that short term comets are still here would indicate that the solar system was created less than ten thousand years ago. Evolutionists often appeal to the Oort Cloud. It is cold so it can not be observed by infrared telescopes. It is dark so it can’t be seen with optical telescopes. In other words, it is not science. It is an ad hock invention to get around the obviously young solar system.

While thinking about things that travel in space…… Perhaps some of you saw the photographs in LIFE magazine many years ago (1954). A meteorite actually crashed through the roof of her house and hit the woman on her leg. Fortunately, the roof absorbed most of the energy. Possibly some of you have visited the big meteor crater in Arizona. It is quite spectacular. There is evidence of an even larger one that has been found as a result satellite photography. The crater was so huge that it was not recognized as a crater until man's technology had allowed him a more spectacular view of the earth that God created. At any rate, they show undoubtedly that the earth, even though it has a protective atmosphere, is periodically struck by meteorites. Apparently some of them are extremely large. There aren't huge numbers that hit the earth every year, and in fact in a single year it's not really very significant. But, if you multiply that by the evolutionist's billions of years, then the total number of impacts becomes very significant indeed.

We should be able to find many craters along with deposits of meteorite material almost anywhere in the crust of the earth. When we look in the strata of naturally open places like Grand Canyon, we should find tons, literally tons of meteorites or at least their fragments. The multiple hundreds of millions of them should be all over the place. What we find is an extreme absents of meteorite material. That’s why they bring such a high price when discovered. This is, as we creationist would predict, consistent with the idea of a young earth. Isn’t this what the Scripture indicates?

Another evidence from our solar system is the fact that we have dust and small asteroids close to the sun. This material is also acted on by the solar radiation: This radiation acts on the fine dust and actually blows it out of the solar system. The dust actually accelerates to many tens of thousands of miles per hour. From about two inches and up, the asteroids are too big to actually be pushed out. The solar wind acts on them in such a way that their orbital speed decreases. When they are going too slowly to orbit, they just spiral into the sun. We can see that both by pushing the material out and causing it to spiral into the sun, the solar wind sweeps out or vacuums in the dust and fine debris in the solar system. It is so efficient that it would clean out every particle, out to the orbit of the planet Jupiter, in just two billion years. This is called the Pointeen / Robertson effect.

There are tremendous amounts of fine dust and material remaining even very close to the sun. If the solar system is just six thousand years old, that would certainly explain why we have all this very fine material so close to the sun. That material should have been swept clean literally millions of years ago. So, this appears to be an indication of a relatively young age for the solar system, which of course includes earth

The orbit of the moon has been measured so long that science has documented its orbit to be changing. It recedes about one and one half inches each year. There is an astronomical law called the Roche’s Limit. It states as a smaller astronomical body approaches a larger astronomical body, it can only come within a certain limited distance before the stronger gravity of the larger body will destroy the smaller body. As a result the moon could not have started any closer than the Roche Limit at its closest if evoution is true, and most likely has been receding ever since. If you put that in the perspective of billions of years, you'd look out in the sky and you wouldn't be able to find the moon. (A billion is a thousand millions and a million is a thousand thousands. We're talking a huge number.) It would be a speck of light like a planet or a star. The fact that the moon is still very prominent in the sky indicates that it has not been there very long.

There is a famous picture taken from the Apollo Eight lunar mission when it orbited the moon. A picture of an earth rise over the horizon of the moon was taken and it very definitely depicts a difference between the earth and the moon. The conspicuous thing is earth has clouds: It obviously has an atmosphere which supplies some protection. The moon has no such atmosphere and is very pock marked with meteorite strikes and other space debris.

When scientists first began to think seriously about putting a man on the moon, a lot of them were concerned. They thought that it would be impossibility because it was billions of years old and the influx of meteoric dust from the cosmos would be almost an insurmountable problem. This dust was the object of lots of measurements during the sixties. The amount of material coming in was believed to have accumulated in a huge layer of dust on the moon. They assumed the dust to be at least fifty feet thick and un-solidified because the moon has no weather to consolidate and compact the dust. The general consensus was that very fine cosmic dust would be like sifted flower. Scientists were convinced the landing craft would disappear into this dust if men tried to land on the moon. They were so convinced they required the lunar craft to be built with large pads hopefully to float or rest on the dust. Neal Armstrong, the first man to step out of the space craft said, "I can scrape with my boot through the dust onto solid rock." It was about an inch thick.

They were taken aback because the creationist began to point out, "Well look, if the astronauts had found that thick layer of dust, they would have said, 'It's because the moon is billions of years old.' but since they didn't find it we creationists use the reverse logic to show that the moon is rather young."

Measuring the dust has continued. The data from the sixties and the data we get now have some major inconsistencies. During the sixties about a thousand times more was coming into our atmosphere than what we measure now. This appears to indicate that this dust comes in waves. In spite of this, if the earth and the moon are billions of years old, there can be hundreds of fluctuations and there would still be a lot more than an inch of dust there. As Armstrong would tell you, "There's only enough for a good footprint."

Conversely there is a reason the creationist would predict that there should be large quantities of dust on the moon if in fact it is billions of years old. The dust would be of lunar origin though, not from space. It is an aspect of lunar dust that presents a major problem to the thinking evolutionist. That is the fact that because the moon does not have the protection of an atmosphere, its surface is bombarded by full strength ultraviolet light and other cosmic radiation which is estimated to break down even the hardest lunar rocks at at least the rate of three ten thousandths of an inch per year.

To give you an idea of how small that is, that's about 1/16 the thickness of a human hair. Not much. Again though, if you multiply that by just one billion years (remember a billion is a huge number that is casually thrown around by evolutionist), there would be thirty three thousand feet of pulverized, powdered rock on the surface of the moon That's enough to erode the entire lunar mountain ranges. The lunar mountain ranges are supposed to have been there for billions of years. As radiation strikes the tops of these mountains, gravitation would slough the material off the tops of them. The astronauts should have found, as they went out with the lunar rover, tremendous sloughed off deposits of that dust at the bases of the mountains. Just like Charles Lyell's belief about the earth, since it was not founded on the Truth, the dust was not there. Indeed the dust was very thin every where. The evolutionists never have come up with a good explanation for that. In addition, there should be no sharp features on the moon. The fact that they exist in sharp detail indicates an extremely young age for the moon.

I remember one evolutionists made a joke about it because there is no valid scientific explanation. He laughingly said, "Maybe the Martian Mining Company is coming to the dark side of the moon and carting it all away."